McDonald’s new battle over the way the Big Mac and fries are packaged

EVOLVE GLOBAL SUMMIT 2022
Evolve Events

McDonald’s Big Mac made the move to paper packaging in 1990 and the fast food chain is making progress on more recent goals to have 100% of products in recycled or renewable materials by 2025.
But shareholder activists focused on environmental and climate issues want McDonald’s to go further, and focus on reusables, now mandated in some countries including France.
The restaurant giant says it will study the economics of reusables, but isn’t convinced it makes more sense than current sustainability practices.

S3studio | Getty Images News | Getty Images

In 1990, McDonald’s ditched the styrofoam home for the Big Mac, and its signature burger has been served ever since in paper wrap. Reusable packaging may be next. 
McDonald’s is making some progress on a goal it set in 2018 to use recycled or renewable packaging in 100% of its restaurants by the end of 2025, but activist shareholders are moving onto the next big target: pressing the fast-food giant for more focus on reusables. 

While there were hundreds of environmental and climate measures introduced by shareholders this spring for annual meetings, one that got dropped in March was at McDonald’s, which reached a deal with shareholder advocacy non-profit As You Sow to withdraw a proposal in exchange for the company agreeing to produce a report on the implications of switching to reusable packaging. 
The battle between McDonald’s and environmentally minded shareholders goes a long way back, starting in the 1980s when multiple grassroots organizations and broader public awareness about the lightweight plastic material known as polystyrene led to the change in the packaging of the Big Mac and other sandwiches. But it wasn’t until 2018 that McDonald’s completely eliminated styrofoam across all of its global markets.
McDonald’s biggest reusable packaging changes are outside US
McDonald’s has made several big packaging changes in recent years, mostly coming from outside the U.S. and following governmental action. The European Commission banned certain single-use packaging, including straws, plates and cutlery, and required all packaging in these categories be designed for reuse as of July 2021, the first time the EU targeted reuse specifically. And at the end of last year, McDonald’s France launched a reusable plastic food container in its signature red color – though not without initiating a new controversy over the decision to not use all glass or metal. 
There are many challenges that come with reusable packaging, and McDonald’s has looked to highlight that as it agrees to conduct more research on the reusables economy. Last month, McDonald’s released a report it commissioned from consulting firm Kearny — with the headline “No silver bullet” — detailing several reasons why reusables may be too expensive to be a sole solution. The report suggests the balancing act the fast food giant is trying to pull off — responding to changes in European regulation when required, but also arguing that it is a mistake to see reusables as the only model for responsible packaging in the future.

A meal tray with reusable dishes and containers is photographed at a McDonald’s restaurant in Levallois-Perret, near Paris, on December 20, 2022. – From January 1, 2023, within the framework of the anti-waste law, fast food restaurants must use reusable dishes for on-site orders.
Julien De Rosa | Afp | Getty Images

High upfront costs, required kitchen and infrastructure changes – whether on or off-site dishwashing capacities – and rises in energy and water use all pose challenges to the operations of reusable packaging, the report said. The report quoted the European Paper Packaging Alliance, which estimated that water consumption for a reusable system with 100 reuses would cost 267% higher than a paper single-usage model.

The report also touched on the potential negative impact to consumer experience and food safety.
“In some circumstances, plastic is the right option to keep things safe and properly contained, let alone making sure that the food you love is tasty and the experience is what you are hoping it would be,” a McDonald’s spokesperson told CNBC.
Food safety measures that could be compromised include the chemicals that can come from color coatings on reusable plastics and the potential for microbiological growth and accumulation if the packaging is scratched – in addition to whatever consumers do with the packaging before they return it.  
“In a climate where it seems that there needs to be an all-or-nothing approach, what’s been missed in reporting on reusables to date is just the actual open scale of it,” the McDonald’s spokeswoman said.

The economics case for reusable packaging

Advocates for reusable packaging argue that the economics will work.
Multinational corporations need to have reusable packaging strategies in place as part of risk management, according to Kelly McBee, circular economy senior coordinator at As You Sow, to comply with a Global Plastics Treaty deemed by the United Nations aimed to end single-use plastic production and usage by 2024 under an international legally binding agreement.
The reusable packaging efforts that McDonald’s has already undertaken in Europe show that a strategy around reuse in the U.S. is possible, McBee said, adding that she expects McDonald’s future report on the topic to “discuss how, when and to what extent the company could pursue reusable packaging in the U.S.”
Furthermore, she says other studies of reusable packaging show that, over time, businesses will save money that otherwise would be spent on disposables.
McBee cited research from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which found that replacing 20% of single-use plastic packaging with reusable alternatives offers an opportunity worth at least $10 billion by weight cost, saving six million tons of material. 
McDonald’s, however, is sticking to its broader sustainability message in packaging.
“There’s unintended consequences of reuse in a world and in a system where we’ve made so much progress. While reuse has been kind of a bright flashy object as of late, McDonald’s has been invested in studying this for a decade,” the company spokeswoman said.
For example, there has already been discussion of converting existing packaging to primarily fiber-based options. Since 2018, McDonald’s has reduced virgin fossil fuel-based plastic in Happy Meal toys by 24.4% globally, and has committed to 100% of sourcing for materials used in Happy Meal toys will be made from more renewable, recycled, or certified materials like bio-based and plant-derived materials and certified fiber by 2025.
Fast-food rivals such as Burger King are testing reusables
Fast-food rivals have been testing reusable packaging options, including Burger King, which worked with Loop, a global recycling company, on pilot programs to create a reuse system at its restaurants in 2020. In New York City, Tokyo, and Portland, Oregon, customers could return reusable cups and containers to participating chains in exchange for a small deposit.
McDonald’s also worked with Loop on a pilot in the U.K. for reusable coffee cups. For a £1 (currently $1.24) deposit, customers could opt into using a returnable Loop cup and could even receive a 20p ($0.25) discount on their purchase. When returned in store, customers could receive their deposit back in the form of cash, a voucher, or a new reusable cup for their next drink. At kiosks, customers could get a voucher or their money returned through the Loop app.
Both the Burger King and McDonald’s pilot programs were live until mid-2022, and the fast food chains are now “assessing the development of the platform,” according to a Loop spokesperson.
Clemence Schmid, general manager at Loop Global, said consumers want reuse and will reward companies that do it, but added that the use of reusable containers and cups “has to make sense to the consumer and be kept affordable, meaning the deposit is reasonable.”
Alluding to McDonald’s concerns, she said the company has to ensure there is enough scale and volume for the usage of reusable products to make economic sense.
Burger King hasn’t made a permanent decision and it did not provide many details on the results of the test.
“The pilot program has now concluded, and we are using key learnings about guest adoption and operational effectiveness in identifying long-term solutions for reusables,” a spokeswoman at Restaurant Brands International, the fast food holding company that owns Burger King, wrote via email.

Matt Prindiville, the former CEO of reuse non-profit Upstream Solutions who recently moved to redeemable container company Clynk, said there is “a sweet spot of finding the right incentive to motivate behavior without discouraging participation or creating an undue burden.”
Whether that be through a deposit incentive or an added discount, Prindiville said that reusable packaging can not only be cost-effective, but also create a better environmental profile for McDonald’s and be a better experience for the customer.
“We generally like eating and drinking out of things that aren’t disposable. It’s not a great experience to drink out of something that you are just going to throw out in the garbage a few minutes later,” Prindiville said.
While moving in the direction of reusable products would require capital improvements and staff training, Prindiville highlighted a recent Upstream Solutions report that saw 100% of 121 businesses and 11 institutional dining programs save money when switching to reusables, factoring in the costs of new labor, products, and increased dishwashing. But there is a need for standardization at scale in order for McDonald’s and other fast food chains to be cost-effective when it comes to reusable packaging, he said. 
Three decades on from the shift away from foam Big Mac packaging, McDonald’s and its franchisees have moved to renewable, recycled, and certified sources in many product areas and across many countries. But the question remains how feasible it is for the company to make the bigger shift to reusable products, a question its recent deal with As You Sow stipulates the company provide an answer to by the end of 2024.

‘The poison plastic’: why calls are growing for a ban on PVC

A toxic train derailment in Ohio has forced an uncomfortable conversation in the US. The pollution and response to the accident was bad enough for local residents, but black and lower-income communities face the effects of America’s dirty plastic industry on a daily basis.

Dramatic images of the Ohio train derailment and its aftermath gripped the world’s attention in February: a huge plume of thick, black smoke towering into the atmosphere; the blackened carcasses of railcars on their sides, scattered in an unnatural formation; a land scorched and scarred from 50 rail cars, many carrying toxic chemicals, coming off the tracks.
Scientists have told E&T that it could be decades before long-term health impacts of the accident are fully understood. They are concerned about the release of carcinogenic chemicals into the atmosphere, as well as into the soil and potentially, the food chain.
However, the Ohio derailment was more than a one-off environmental disaster. The accident has lifted the lid on policies around hazardous chemicals, as well as corporate responsibility and environmental injustice.
Mike Schade, an expert from the group Toxic-Free Future, has been warning about the whole lifecycle dangers of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, for years. “PVC releases highly hazardous chemicals, and it has had devastating impacts for communities and workers for decades. We call it the poison plastic,” he says.

The Polluted Mermaid: Oceans shows worrying view of ‘The Little Mermaid’ to raise awareness of marine pollution

EDITORIAL USE ONLY
Oceans Little Mermaid. Picture date: Wednesday May 3, 2023. PA Photo. Picture credit should read: Owen Humphreys/PA Wire,
Sustainable toilet paper company Oceans has created waves with striking images that demonstrate the potentially devastating impact of marine pollution ahead of the 2023 live-action remake of The Little Mermaid (May 26).
As ocean advocates and supporters of UK charity, The Marine Conservation Society, the brand manufactures 100% plastic-free kitchen roll and toilet paper.
With many British coastlines being negatively impacted by contamination and pollution, Oceans has collated data to underline the ten most polluted beaches across England*, with Blackpool Central and Scarborough South Bay featuring among the worst affected.
Also on this list is Cullercoats Bay, a North Tyneside beach in the North-East of England, where Oceans organised the shoot of ‘The Polluted Mermaid,’ which featured the mythical sea creature washed ashore along with plastic bottles, waste and harmful chemicals.
The campaign reveals the harsh realities that human activity has on our oceans and the wider planet. Oceans hopes to drive better awareness of the conditions of our coastlines with the timely release of these images ahead of the live action Disney adaptation of The Little Mermaid, which launches in the UK this month.
Aligned with its Sky Ad Smart campaign message, ‘Nature’s had enough’, the stunt aims to encourage people to switch their everyday lifestyle habits and begin using household products that are more environmentally friendly.
Jordan Kelly, brand marketing manager at Oceans, said: “This campaign has been a long time coming and we’re delighted to have finally fulfilled our plan. We’re huge advocates of protecting marine life, and we felt this was an opportune time to get such a serious message across.
“At Oceans, we’ve made it our mission to create sustainable, affordable alternatives to often overlooked household essentials, including plastic free toilet roll and kitchen roll.
“Each person who joins us on this mission will help protect the marine life…even the mermaids!”
Jordan added: “Oceans is no stranger to being at the forefront of raising awareness of marine pollution, and this latest campaign is a breath of fresh air not only for the brand, but for the UK audience.
“Continued lack of ocean protection and ignorance will accelerate climate change beyond repair; and with The High Seas Treaty aiming to help place 30% of the seas into protected areas by 2030, this campaign has the potential to be an imaginative solution that truly makes a splash.”

Related

Maryland calls on EPA to address microfiber pollution

CBS News Live

CBS News Baltimore

Live

BALTIMORE — Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown has joined a coalition of 16 states urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address microfiber pollution, the Attorney General’s Office announced Monday. In a letter, the states urge the EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to evaluate their authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate microfiber pollution.”The United States needs to join other countries that are already helping prevent plastic microfibers from choking our environment and public health,” Attorney General Brown said.      The Attorney General’s office said 640,000 to 1,500,000 plastic microfibers are shed from synthetic clothing during wash cycles, making them a main source of microplastic pollution in the world’s water. The state also said microfibers are a harm to human health.  “Microfibers can be associated with hormonal cancers, reproductive problems including infertility, metabolic disorders including diabetes and obesity, asthma, and neurodevelopmental disorders including autism,” the Attorney General’s office said. 

The letter urges the EPA and NOAA to invest funding into research into the harms of microfibers to human health, and invest in microfiber capture technologies, such as washing machine microfiber filtration systems.  The Attorney General’s office said these technologies have already been acknowledged as potential solutions by the EPA, and that the agency should “act on its own recommendations.” 

Oregon bans plastic foam and PFAS in food containers, promotes reusable alternatives

Oregon on Monday became the 10th state in the U.S. to ban polystyrene foam food containers, dealing another blow to a plastic whose chemical components have been linked to cancer and nervous system damage.

Starting in 2025, a new law signed by Governor Tina Kotek will ban the production, sale, and distribution of polystyrene foam cups and takeout food containers — as well as coolers and packing peanuts — anywhere in Oregon. It’s part of a broader legislative effort in the Beaver State to replace single-use plastics with reusable alternatives.

The polystyrene law also bans toxic “forever chemicals” in food packaging, and a second bill signed by Kotek will make it legal for consumers to bring their own reusable takeout containers to restaurants. 

The legislation was “a long time coming,” said Oregon state Senator Janeen Sollman, a Democrat who cosponsored both bills. Banning polystyrene foam, in particular, had been a longtime priority for her, and she said it took a bipartisan coalition of legislators to finally push the measure through.  

Polystyrene foam, a kind of plastic made from fossil fuels and synthetic chemicals, has long been considered a scourge to public health and the environment. Its primary building block, styrene, is a probable human carcinogen that can leach from the material over time, or when polystyrene is exposed to high heat. Because polystyrene foam is nonrecyclable, it often winds up on beaches or in the ocean, where it breaks into smaller fragments called microplastics that can harm marine life.

Hundreds of cities across the country have already banned polystyrene foam — including Portland, Oregon, where the material has been outlawed since 1990 — and state-level restrictions have gained steam in recent years. Besides Oregon, nine other states and the District of Columbia have banned polystyrene foam food containers, and Hawai’i and California have de facto bans. Many of those bans, like Oregon’s, also include coolers and polystyrene packing peanuts.

Oregon’s legislation also goes beyond polystyrene to prohibit per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, from being intentionally added to plates, bowls, cups, and other foodware. Tara Brock, Pacific counsel for the nonprofit Oceana, said this was important to ensure that polystyrene isn’t replaced with “regrettable alternatives,” since many foodware products made from paper or other types of plastic are treated with PFAS to give them water- and oil-repellent properties. PFAS, known colloquially as “forever chemicals,” do not break down naturally over time and have been found in the bloodstreams of 97 percent of Americans and hundreds of nonhuman animal species. They’ve been linked to cancer, high blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol.

Oregon is now the 12th state to ban PFAS from food packaging, following Washington, California, New York, Vermont, and others. 

Under Oregon’s law, people who sell or distribute polystyrene packing peanuts or foodware treated with PFAS after January 1, 2025, may incur a civil penalty of up to $500 a day. Food vendors distributing polystyrene foam food containers will be liable for a smaller penalty of up to $100 a day. 

Oregon state Representative Maxine Dexter, a Democrat, said the bans on PFAS and polystyrene are part of a more holistic effort to move beyond single-use foodware altogether, since most plastic is not recyclable and disposable alternatives made of paper or metal come with their own environmental impacts. The second law signed by Kotek directs the Oregon Health Authority to adopt rules by June 30, 2024, allowing consumers to bring their own containers to restaurants so they can be filled with food. The state’s Department of Agriculture adopted similar rules for grocery stores, which often sell staples like rice and beans in bulk bins, in February.

“We can’t recycle our way out of this issue; we absolutely have to use less,” Dexter told Grist. A big part of that is reduced plastic production, which Oregon is pursuing through a 2021 law that will make companies financially responsible for the waste they generate starting in 2025. But Dexter said new laws are also needed to shift consumer behavior, encouraging more people to carry reusable containers with them on a daily basis.

Oregon’s new reuse law could also protect those who are already familiar with refilling their own jars, tins, and tubs. “A lot of Oregonians have been doing this reuse behavior” and didn’t know it wasn’t allowed under the health code, according to Brock. “I’ve always been that person who brings my old yogurt container to the restaurant to take home my leftovers … We just want to make sure we’re doing it in a way that is safe for consumers.”

Brock said she’s eager for more states to follow Oregon’s lead, and potentially for federal lawmakers to take action to reduce single-use plastics — an objective that’s supported by three-quarters of American voters, according to a recent Ipsos poll conducted for Oceana. The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, a bill proposed in 2021, is the strongest example of such a federal policy, and it’s expected to be reintroduced this legislative session. If passed, the act would ban most single-use plastics and place a moratorium on new or expanded plastic production facilities.

Recycling plants release microplastics into wastewater

An unsettling report released barely a year ago painted a grim picture of the plastics industry—only about 5 percent of the 46 million annual tons of plastic waste in the US makes it to recycling facilities. The number is even more depressing after realizing that is roughly half of experts’ previous estimates. But if all that wasn’t enough, new information throws a heaping handful of salt on the wound: of the plastic that does make it to recycling, a lot of it is still released into the world as potentially toxic microplastics.

According to the pilot study recently published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances focused on a single, modern facility, recycling plants’ wastewater contains a staggering number of microplastic particles. And as Wired explained on Friday, all those possibly toxic particulates have to go somewhere, i.e. potentially city water systems, or the larger environment.

The survey focusing on one new, unnamed facility examined its entire recycling process. This involves sorting, shredding, and melting plastics down into pellets. During those phases of recycling, however, the plastic waste is washed multiple times, which subsequently sheds particles smaller than 5 millimeters along the way. Despite factoring in the plant’s state-of-the-art filtration system designed to capture particulates as tiny as 50 microns, the facility still produced as many as 75 billion particles per cubic meter of wastewater.

[Related: How companies greenwash their plastic pollution.]

The silver lining here is that without the filtration systems, it could be much worse. Researchers estimated facilities that utilized filters cut down their microplastic residuals from 6.5 million pounds to around 3 million pounds per year. Unfortunately, many recycling locations aren’t as equipped as the modern plant used within the study. On top of that, the team only focused on microplastics as small as 1.6 microns; particles can get so small they actually enter organisms’ individual cells. This implies much more plastic escapes these facilities than previously anticipated.

“I really don’t want it to suggest to people that we shouldn’t recycle, and to give it a completely negative reputation,” Erina Brown, a plastics scientist at the University of Strathclyde, told Wired. “What it really highlights is that we just really need to consider the impacts of the solutions.”

Most experts agree that the most important way to minimize coating the entire planet in microplastics is to focus on the larger issue—reducing society’s reliance on plastics in general, and pursuing alternative materials. In the meantime, recycling remains an important part of sustainability, as long as both facilities do everything they can to minimize microscopic waste.

‘A different way of doing a festival’: Imagine Zero Music Festival debuts in Brandon, Vermont

Most live music fans have no doubt had the experience: you’re enjoying a concert or festival, only to get that guilty feeling at the end as trash is sprawled everywhere.“It doesn’t need to be that way,” says Ben Kogan, a Woodstock musician and founder of Reusable Solutions, an outreach organization focused on eradicating single-use plastic and combating climate change.

Wanted: Lost crab traps. Reward: $5

Article body copy
Crab traps work a bit like Roach Motels: crabs crawl in, but they don’t crawl out. That’s good news for crab fishers’ chances of pulling in a good catch, but when traps get lost at sea, they become a menace to all sorts of animals.
With no one there to retrieve them, the traps continue to fish, says Ryan Bradley, head of the Mississippi Commercial Fisheries United, a nonprofit fishermen’s organization. “Marine life gets into the trap. Eventually, they can’t eat so they die, and then other marine life becomes attracted to it. They get into the trap, and they die. It just becomes this awful cycle of death.”
Derelict crab traps harm wildlife and disrupt other fishers, especially shrimpers. Bulky crab traps get caught in shrimping nets, tearing them open or blocking them from catching shrimp. Frustrated shrimpers, with nowhere to put the smelly traps, generally just throw them back, continuing the cycle.
But a group in Mississippi has found a solution: paying shrimpers a US $5 bounty to collect and recycle derelict crab traps. In just three years, the program has removed almost 3,000 crab traps from Mississippi waters. Crab traps are tagged, and those that are still in good condition are returned to their owners, while traps that are too broken down are recycled.
It’s a real win-win. Wildlife is safer, the water is cleaner and, says Bradley, who cofounded the program, there’s been a clear trend that shrimpers are encountering fewer traps.
The group, which includes the fishers’ association, Mississippi State University, the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program, recently published a paper expanding on the project’s accomplishments.
Alyssa Rodolfich, a graduate student with Mississippi State University, knows the central-northern Gulf of Mexico well. She grew up in the area fishing with her dad, a charter boat captain. But she hadn’t thought much about derelict crab traps until she started working with the incentive program as an intern.
“I didn’t realize how big of a problem it was until I was on the cleaning-up end of it, after a few months of removing, like, 200 crab traps at a time,” she says. “It was heavy and gross, and the amount of by-catch in the traps was a lot.”
At the same time, she was talking with shrimpers, learning about the problems derelict traps pose for them. Now working as the program’s manager, Rodolfich says it’s gratifying to see the results. “It feels like a big accomplishment, not just to see the amount of debris that’s been removed but also to see the change in attitude and behavior,” she says.
The incentive works like a bottle-redemption program. Participating shrimpers register for the program, document the traps they collect, and tag them before turning them in to a redemption site and documenting the drop-off to claim the reward.
“It’s not uncommon for our guys to turn in five, 10, 15 of these traps from one multiday shrimping trip,” Bradley says.
Chloé Dubois, the cofounder and head of the British Columbia–based Ocean Legacy Foundation, a nonprofit focused on marine debris, calls it “a great success story.” Her organization was not involved with the project but is advocating for a similar program to be piloted in British Columbia.
Dubois says redemption programs have historically been very successful at diverting waste products at the end of their life cycle. But in the ghost fishing and marine debris sphere, she says, the Mississippi program is a pioneer. “There aren’t many examples of programs like this,” she says.
Partnering with the fishing industry on the incentives and using the program to gather data on the numbers and locations of traps while also removing marine debris further sets the program apart, she says.
Bradley says his group has fielded calls from other communities hoping to develop similar programs, though he notes that some states have legal issues that make it difficult for fishers to collect traps that aren’t their own.
In the meantime, the Mississippi program is growing and expanding. With a recent grant from NOAA, they’re starting a new pilot project—paying shrimpers to collect all the other stuff they find littering the Gulf.
“We’ve seen everything from washing machines to toilets to tires to plastic bags,” says Bradley. “The other day, one guy told me he pulled up a shopping cart. So these are the types of things we want to get out of our marine environment.”

Lobbyists kill Virginia climate change bills

Luca Powell

The proposal was simple.Wary of mounting plastic in Virginia’s bays and waterways, a state senator from Roanoke wanted to allow localities to ban plastic bags. For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has known that fewer than 10% of plastic bags get recycled and that most wind up in the ocean, slowly becoming decomposing plastic that finds its way into fish and drinking water.The senator, John Edwards, did not expect the pushback. In a committee meeting during the legislative session, five lobbyists came up to speak against the bill.One, Mike Carlin, implored the committee to give recycling a chance.“I believe that SB933 (Edwards’ bill) sends the wrong message to this industry, and is a deterrent to investment in our state, by banning plastic which can be recycled,” said Carlin, a lobbyist with the national Coalition for Consumer Choice.

People are also reading…

Similar showdowns take place several times a day during Virginia’s legislative session. Despite the developing climate crisis, bills designed to curb pollution and emissions find fierce opposition in the growing, well-financed lobbies that have put down deep roots in the commonwealth.Sometimes, the lobbyists represent companies that outwardly market themselves to customers as environmentally friendly.This session, legislators proposed a number of ideas to make Virginia more green and to make it safer from harmful chemicals.Del. Kathy Tran, D-Fairfax, proposed a bill to ban the use of coal tar sealants — the thick, black goop used to coat asphalt on driveways and parking lots.The sealants contain toxic compounds — polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs — that leak into the environment over time and have been found in Virginia’s waterways, according to reporting from Virginia Commonwealth University’s Capital News Service.Del. Nadarius Clark, D-Portsmouth, proposed a bill to study whether Virginia’s highly active plastics industry was shedding “microplastics” into the state’s drinking water.Another bill proposed by Edwards would have required water companies to tell the public when their drinking water was found to have problematic levels of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, the “forever chemicals” that have been shown to harm humans and especially children.The bill was supported and presented by Chris Pomeroy, legal counsel for the Virginia Municipal Drinking Water Association.One lobbyist spoke in support. “This is just asking for a community’s right to know if their water’s safe,” said Pat Calvert with the Virginia Conservation Network.Carlin spoke against the bill, this time on behalf of the Virginia Manufacturers Association, another prominent industry lobby.He was joined by a representative from the American Chemistry Council, who said that telling Virginians when “forever chemicals” were found in their drinking water would cause “undue alarm.”The bill was tabled by the committee, which means it was killed. The votes to squelch the bill came from Dels. Michael Webert, R-Fauquier; Chris Runion, R-Rockingham; Rob Bloxom, R-Accomack; Tony Wilt, R-Rockingham; and Buddy Fowler, R-Hanover. All received A ratings from Carlin’s organization.Tran’s sealant legislation also failed, as did Clark’s bill to study plastics.Carlin did not reply to several requests for comment, nor did Brett Vassey, president of the Virginia Manufacturers Association.Unsurprisingly, money is the big differentiator between the environmental and industrial lobbies. Most of the former are nonprofits, for which it is illegal to make political donations.Trade groups, law firms and big Virginia companies like Dominion Energy have no such restrictions. All give freely to Democrats and Republicans alike, although donation data from the Virginia Public Access Project shows that Republicans benefit far more from industry-aligned lobbying groups.For example, the Virginia Retail Federation, a lobby that represents Virginia small businesses, moved over $50,000 in campaign donations in 2022. The group gave mostly to Republicans.“They’re lobbying year-round for their priorities, which is frustrating because we in the environmental space don’t have those kinds of resources,” said Connor Kish, legislative director with the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club.

Plastic breaking down into tiny particles that float like dust in the airA short legislative session sharpens the point. Industries can simply hire more lobbyists than environmental groups, outgunning them in a game defined by time and access.In the most recent legislative session, 1,030 lobbyists had registered with the state’s ethics board. The number ticks higher every year.

Virginia Public Access Project

Meanwhile, lobbyists are also writing their own legislation to beat back bans from environmentalists.In 2022, Washington Gas pushed a bill that would ban Virginia localities from zoning buildings without natural gas hookups. Natural gas primarily is composed of methane, which accounts for about 12% of all greenhouse gas emissions.The bill came through Terry Kilgore, a Republican in the House of Delegates whose campaign has received $22,000 from Washington Gas across his 30-year political career. VPAP data shows the largest donation — a $6,000 check — came the year he put the bill forward.In a statement shared by his office, Kilgore said, “The impetus for filing House Bill 1257 was to preserve fuel choice and ensure a family’s gas stove cannot be taken away.”

A1 Extra! Luca Powell discusses the plastic polluting local waterways – A1 Extra is presented by 8@4 | A1 ExtraA version of Kilgore’s bill ultimately passed after it was reworked last August in a special session.“Lobbyists have a tremendous influence in this place,” said Edwards, the Roanoke senator who sponsored the plastics and PFAS bills. “The General Assembly is free to make their own decision, but they’re heavily influenced.”Edwards’ plastics bill was nixed by lobbyists from the Virginia Retail Federation. The lobby represents small and large businesses across the state, including Dominion, Home Depot and Target — companies that market their environmental responsibility to their customers.It was also opposed by the Virginia Food Industry Association, which is funded by donations from such grocers as Publix and Wegmans. Publix actively tracks the number of plastic bags it saves on its website. Wegmans committed to eliminating plastic bags in its Virginia stores last summer. Melissa Assalone, director of the Virginia Food Industry Association, did not return a request for comment on the lobby’s position against the bill.Ultimately, Edwards’ bill did not pass either, as it apparently failed to persuade key Democrats on the committee, including Lynwood Lewis, the committee chair.Lewis represents Accomack and Northampton counties on the state’s Eastern Shore. In his 18-year legislative career, he has received $10,000 in campaign donations from Troutman Pepper, another of the five lobbying firms that initially pushed against the plastics legislation. He also received $6,250 in campaign donations from the Virginia Retail Federation.Lewis voted “nay” on the bill.
Luca Powell (804) 649-6103lpowell@timesdispatch.com@luca_a_powell on Twitter

0 Comments

#lee-rev-content { margin:0 -5px; }
#lee-rev-content h3 {
font-family: inherit!important;
font-weight: 700!important;
border-left: 8px solid var(–lee-blox-link-color);
text-indent: 7px;
font-size: 24px!important;
line-height: 24px;
}
#lee-rev-content .rc-provider {
font-family: inherit!important;
}
#lee-rev-content h4 {
line-height: 24px!important;
font-family: “serif-ds”,Times,”Times New Roman”,serif!important;
margin-top: 10px!important;
}
@media (max-width: 991px) {
#lee-rev-content h3 {
font-size: 18px!important;
line-height: 18px;
}
}

Oregon State House declares war on modern plastics

PFAS or “forever chemicals” has been found in the blood of nearly every American, including newborn babies. Senate Bill 543 and Senate Bill 545 are significant steps forward in reducing plastic pollution.The Oregon state House passed two bills with bipartisan support to address the growing environmental and public health impacts of single-use plastics. Both bills now head to Gov. Tina Kotek’s desk for her signature. Senate Bill 543 will phase out polystyrene foam foodware, packing peanuts and coolers and prohibit the use of PFAS, the toxic substances nicknamed “forever chemicals” because of their longevity, in food packaging starting January 1, 2025. The legislation passed the House by a vote of 40-18.Senate Bill 545 instructs the Oregon Health Authority to update the state’s health code to make it easier for restaurants to provide reusable container options. This bill cleared the House by a vote of 38-18.On February 2, 2023 the Oregon Department of Agriculture officially adopted new rules enabling grocery stores, small co-ops and other retail establishments to offer sanitary reusable containers and refill systems.Senate Bill 545 directs the Oregon Health Authority to undergo similar rulemaking to allow Oregon restaurants, and their customers, to do the same.Although the subject may appear to not have any relation with fishermen and the fishing industry, it does: according to Tara Brock, Oceana’s Pacific counsel based in Portland, “plastics are overwhelming our oceans, killing marine life, and devastating ecosystems. The only way to head off this crisis is to start reducing the amount of plastic we create, use and throw away, and to start doing that as quickly as possible.”From the Ocean to your tableHere is one example of the “path” taken by plastics: when the  Stockholm University study measured the level of chemicals found in women in the Faroe Islands, a remote location far from industrial or chemical pollution, they found unusually high concentrations of toxic industrial chemicals in their breast milk. According to a story published by The Guardian, “The chemicals were coming from the ocean or, more specifically, from the pilot whales that make up an important part of the islanders’ diet.”According to the article, “Inuit living in the Canadian Arctic have also been found to have higher POP levels in their blood than the general population of Canada, predominantly due to their diet of fish and marine mammals such as walrus and narwhal.” Senate Bill 543 and Senate Bill 545 aim to put an end to this cycle, which, in the end, is killing us. Several legislators and advocates celebrated the passage of the two bills as significant steps forward in reducing plastic pollution:“Products that have a ‘forever’ impact on our planet, like polystyrene foam, which doesn’t biodegrade, and PFAS forever chemicals that build up in our bodies and environment, should be eliminated,” said Senator Janeen Sollman (SD-15). “As we move away from these wasteful and harmful plastic products, we should make it easier for Oregon businesses to offer reusable options to help make the zero waste future we are working to build a reality. I am thrilled to see both of these bills pass today and look forward to Governor Kotek signing them into law.”Bills get bipartisan support“I am dedicated to working to preserve the health of our beautiful state, our wildlife and our people. Plastic pollution is harmful and we cannot recycle our way out of this significant problem,” said Representative Maxine Dexter (HD-33). “Today, with the passage of SB 543 and SB 545, we took critical steps toward prioritizing the health and beauty of Oregon above convenience by phasing out the availability of wasteful and toxic single-use plastics.”“Nothing we use for just a few minutes should pollute the environment for hundreds of years,” said Celeste Meiffren-Swango, Environment Oregon’s state director. “The two bills passed by the Oregon legislature today will help Oregon eliminate toxic and wasteful products, shift away from our throwaway culture and build a future where we produce less waste. Thanks to the Oregon legislature for passing these bills. We look forward to seeing them signed into law.” “It’s time to take out the single-use takeout! Senate Bill 543 and 545 aim to help Oregon improve on a one-way, throwaway food service economy. Businesses spend $24 billion a year on disposable food service items. As one of the top items we find on Oregon’s beaches and throughout the environment, millions more each year is spent cleaning this stuff up,” said Charlie Plybon, Oregon Policy Manager with Surfrider Foundation. “With SB 543 Oregon has the chance to become the 10th state in the nation to ban foam foodware, one of the most commonly found single-use plastics polluting beaches worldwide according to Ocean Conservancy data,” said Dr. Anja Brandon, Associate Director of U.S. Plastics Policy at Ocean Conservancy. “Meanwhile, SB 545 will help ensure that as Oregon moves away from toxic single-use plastics like foam we have better access to sustainable and reusable alternatives. These bills are complementary and crucial to tackling the plastic pollution crisis, and we look forward to Governor Kotek signing them into law. Let’s hope that legislatures around the country and in Washington, D.C., are paying attention.” “In recent years, our staff have knocked on tens of thousands of doors in Oregon about the need to move beyond polystyrene foam and the overwhelming response was ‘It’s about time!’,” said Charlie Fisher, state director with OSPIRG. “These bills move Oregon further towards a world where we reduce and reuse instead of use once and throwaway, and we’re happy to see them headed to the Governor’s desk.”“Not only is styrene toxic for human and environmental health, but so is PFAS in foodware,” said Jamie Pang, Environmental Health Program Director at the Oregon Environmental Council. “PFAS has been found in the blood of nearly every American, including newborn babies. Phasing out PFAS in foodware is a common sense way to eliminate a significant source of exposure to cancer-causing and endocrine disrupting chemicals that pollute our bodies and waterways.”