What sort of contamination and what sort of bags is this with? A quick google got me here (which suggests fears are over-stated). But that's from 2013 so wouldn't be surprised if you've more upto...
What sort of contamination and what sort of bags is this with?
A quick google got me here (which suggests fears are over-stated). But that's from 2013 so wouldn't be surprised if you've more upto date data.
Here's one of the newer articles that I could find. It seems to boil down to: You need to wash your bags regularly You need to use separate bags for raw, pre-packaged/ready-to-eat, and non-food I...
Here's one of the newer articles that I could find.
The University of Arizona and Loma Linda University researchers recently found almost all reusable bags randomly selected from customers doing their groceries contained a lot of bacteria.
Nearly half contained coliform bacteria and 12% contained E. coli according to the findings
It seems to boil down to:
You need to wash your bags regularly
You need to use separate bags for raw, pre-packaged/ready-to-eat, and non-food
I wonder how much the impact calculations change when you account for the washings
I think this is the cited paper. A simple hand wash reduced the bacteria >99.9% and was as effective as machine washing, at least at the tested level of detection.
Reading the study: So, they cut out swatches from reusable bags, rubbed raw meat juices spiked with Salmonella on them, and then stored them in zip-lock bags in a hot car for several hours. I...
Reading the study:
raw chicken and beef were hand wiped with sterile gloves and the resulting juices collected in a beaker. The solution was then spiked with approximately 106 Salmonella Typhimurium from an overnight culture. The spiked solutin was then added to 8 × 7 cm swatches cut from reusable grocery bags and placed wet into a zip closure plastic bag.
So, they cut out swatches from reusable bags, rubbed raw meat juices spiked with Salmonella on them, and then stored them in zip-lock bags in a hot car for several hours. I don't think that's representative of real-world usage of reusable bags. Meats are usually packaged so juices are not leaking all over a bag.
I'd be curious to see a study that sampled bags from vegetarians, as I feel most people will put fruits and vegetables directly into their reusable bags without containment. Seeing whether that causes contamination would be more interesting than the above-linked study which, essentially, puts Salmonella on a bag and then waits to see how long the Salmonella survives...
Yeah, they do a lot of weird things. Personally, the loads they’re detecting from the swab compared to what’s just normally on our skin at any given moment don’t really raise a lot of alarm. That...
Yeah, they do a lot of weird things.
Personally, the loads they’re detecting from the swab compared to what’s just normally on our skin at any given moment don’t really raise a lot of alarm.
That said, it’s probably still a good idea to wash reusable bags periodically.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main points of plastic bag bans and/or switching to reusable bags that we are reducing our collective dependence on single-use items and...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main points of plastic bag bans and/or switching to reusable bags that we are reducing our collective dependence on single-use items and working to move past the throwaway lifestyle? Is this not a positive by itself? It is unfortunate that the alternatives are worse overall for the environment (unless you reuse them enough times), but hopefully improvements can be made in the manufacturing and other processes to lessen this impact.
I also am curious about these statistics, to your point. For instance, I'd need to reuse a cotton bag 131 to 7,100 times for it to have less of an impact on the earth than plastic, but is it: You...
I also am curious about these statistics, to your point. For instance, I'd need to reuse a cotton bag 131 to 7,100 times for it to have less of an impact on the earth than plastic, but is it:
You have to use a cotton bag 7100 times for it to have less of an impact than 7100 single use bags?
Or is it that you'd need to reuse your cotton bag 7100 times before it has less of an impact than the single plastic bag you would have used when you bought it to use instead the first time?
If I'm interpreting the wording of the article correctly: Then I believe it is referring to your latter statement. Looking through the (extremely thorough) Danish study, I believe this is...
If I'm interpreting the wording of the article correctly:
Once all of this information has been distilled, scientists can usually offer a fairly straightforward guide: the number of times a given bag should be reused when compared to the standard supermarket plastic bag.
Then I believe it is referring to your latter statement. Looking through the (extremely thorough) Danish study, I believe this is confirmed (pg. 16):
Table IV reports the number of calculated primary reuse times necessary to lower the environmental impacts associated with all carrier bag alternatives to the levels of the LDPE carrier bag.
Interestingly, they also note that reusing light plastic bags (the ones we all know and love) as waste bin liners is more environmentally friendly than recycling them, again highlighting the importance of the order of the old phrase "reduce, reuse, recycle" (heavier plastic bags still benefit environmentally by being recycled). Apparently even incineration is better for the environment than recycling, for all types except PP and recycled PET bags. Personally, I reuse my plastic bags (if I forget or don't bother with reusable bags for a quick trip) for scooping cat litter 😀.
I'm also wondering if "eventual disposal" includes the environmental cost of basically existing forever. The article talked about recycling, reusing and repurposing bags, but doesn't seem to cover...
I'm also wondering if "eventual disposal" includes the environmental cost of basically existing forever. The article talked about recycling, reusing and repurposing bags, but doesn't seem to cover how the materials eventually break down.
I've got some woven polyethylene bags (made from recycled bottles) which I've been using a couple of times a week for at least ten years. So I'm probably in the clear, I suppose.
I've got some woven polyethylene bags (made from recycled bottles) which I've been using a couple of times a week for at least ten years. So I'm probably in the clear, I suppose.
My wife has about 20 reusable bags. Whatever the ones Aldi sells. 4 are "freezer" bags. She's had them for 4 or 5 years, only needing to replace one or two because of tearing or meat blood...
My wife has about 20 reusable bags. Whatever the ones Aldi sells. 4 are "freezer" bags. She's had them for 4 or 5 years, only needing to replace one or two because of tearing or meat blood contamination.
I tend to run into a store on my way home from work and we end up with about 20-30 plastic bags a month. I use them for LOTS of things. Desk small trash can liners, bags while I'm weeding the yard, bags while I'm working in the garage, ...
An implied point is that we don't actually need to buy new reusable bags. A lot of us already have bags, backpacks and such that are perfectly suited to carry groceries, or really anything else we...
An implied point is that we don't actually need to buy new reusable bags. A lot of us already have bags, backpacks and such that are perfectly suited to carry groceries, or really anything else we may buy.
I'm a little confused. Is this suggesting that the fabric bags that are advertised as a better alternative to paper/plastic are typically worse for the environment unless I use them thousands of...
I'm a little confused. Is this suggesting that the fabric bags that are advertised as a better alternative to paper/plastic are typically worse for the environment unless I use them thousands of times?
That's what the studies show, yes. I'm not sure about other countries, but here in Australia the re-usable bag change has been lip service environmentalism at best. There is a lot more that needs...
That's what the studies show, yes.
I'm not sure about other countries, but here in Australia the re-usable bag change has been lip service environmentalism at best. There is a lot more that needs to be done before we start making an actual dint in lessening our negative environmental impact.
The important thing to remember is that doing something is better than doing nothing. The first step will never get you to the end of the journey, but we have to start somewhere.
Is this suggesting that the fabric bags that are advertised as a better alternative to paper/plastic are typically worse for the environment unless I use them thousands of times?
For cotton bags, particularly ones made from organic cotton, yes. For polypropylene and polyethylene bags (which are more commonly found as alternatives in my experience), only around 40 times,...
For cotton bags, particularly ones made from organic cotton, yes. For polypropylene and polyethylene bags (which are more commonly found as alternatives in my experience), only around 40 times, depending on many factors. Cotton bags are generally more sturdy and last longer though, again in my experience. As with pretty much everything, it is nearly impossible to live completely environmentally friendly, but we should try to do the best each of us can.
The only real way regular middle class folks can have a meaningful impact on the environment is to move to a smaller house closer to where you work and use public transit or a bicycle.
The only real way regular middle class folks can have a meaningful impact on the environment is to move to a smaller house closer to where you work and use public transit or a bicycle.
Also, if you're re-using bags, be careful about keeping them clean. Multiple deaths have been attributed to contamination of reusable bags.
What sort of contamination and what sort of bags is this with?
A quick google got me here (which suggests fears are over-stated). But that's from 2013 so wouldn't be surprised if you've more upto date data.
I don't remember the details of it and it was quite a while back, so it's very possible I'm remembering the same study that article is debunking.
Here's one of the newer articles that I could find.
It seems to boil down to:
I wonder how much the impact calculations change when you account for the washings
I think this is the cited paper.
A simple hand wash reduced the bacteria >99.9% and was as effective as machine washing, at least at the tested level of detection.
Reading the study:
So, they cut out swatches from reusable bags, rubbed raw meat juices spiked with Salmonella on them, and then stored them in zip-lock bags in a hot car for several hours. I don't think that's representative of real-world usage of reusable bags. Meats are usually packaged so juices are not leaking all over a bag.
I'd be curious to see a study that sampled bags from vegetarians, as I feel most people will put fruits and vegetables directly into their reusable bags without containment. Seeing whether that causes contamination would be more interesting than the above-linked study which, essentially, puts Salmonella on a bag and then waits to see how long the Salmonella survives...
Yeah, they do a lot of weird things.
Personally, the loads they’re detecting from the swab compared to what’s just normally on our skin at any given moment don’t really raise a lot of alarm.
That said, it’s probably still a good idea to wash reusable bags periodically.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main points of plastic bag bans and/or switching to reusable bags that we are reducing our collective dependence on single-use items and working to move past the throwaway lifestyle? Is this not a positive by itself? It is unfortunate that the alternatives are worse overall for the environment (unless you reuse them enough times), but hopefully improvements can be made in the manufacturing and other processes to lessen this impact.
I also am curious about these statistics, to your point. For instance, I'd need to reuse a cotton bag 131 to 7,100 times for it to have less of an impact on the earth than plastic, but is it:
You have to use a cotton bag 7100 times for it to have less of an impact than 7100 single use bags?
Or is it that you'd need to reuse your cotton bag 7100 times before it has less of an impact than the single plastic bag you would have used when you bought it to use instead the first time?
If I'm interpreting the wording of the article correctly:
Then I believe it is referring to your latter statement. Looking through the (extremely thorough) Danish study, I believe this is confirmed (pg. 16):
Interestingly, they also note that reusing light plastic bags (the ones we all know and love) as waste bin liners is more environmentally friendly than recycling them, again highlighting the importance of the order of the old phrase "reduce, reuse, recycle" (heavier plastic bags still benefit environmentally by being recycled). Apparently even incineration is better for the environment than recycling, for all types except PP and recycled PET bags. Personally, I reuse my plastic bags (if I forget or don't bother with reusable bags for a quick trip) for scooping cat litter 😀.
I'm also wondering if "eventual disposal" includes the environmental cost of basically existing forever. The article talked about recycling, reusing and repurposing bags, but doesn't seem to cover how the materials eventually break down.
I've got some woven polyethylene bags (made from recycled bottles) which I've been using a couple of times a week for at least ten years. So I'm probably in the clear, I suppose.
My wife has about 20 reusable bags. Whatever the ones Aldi sells. 4 are "freezer" bags. She's had them for 4 or 5 years, only needing to replace one or two because of tearing or meat blood contamination.
I tend to run into a store on my way home from work and we end up with about 20-30 plastic bags a month. I use them for LOTS of things. Desk small trash can liners, bags while I'm weeding the yard, bags while I'm working in the garage, ...
An implied point is that we don't actually need to buy new reusable bags. A lot of us already have bags, backpacks and such that are perfectly suited to carry groceries, or really anything else we may buy.
I'm a little confused. Is this suggesting that the fabric bags that are advertised as a better alternative to paper/plastic are typically worse for the environment unless I use them thousands of times?
That's what the studies show, yes.
I'm not sure about other countries, but here in Australia the re-usable bag change has been lip service environmentalism at best. There is a lot more that needs to be done before we start making an actual dint in lessening our negative environmental impact.
The important thing to remember is that doing something is better than doing nothing. The first step will never get you to the end of the journey, but we have to start somewhere.
Yes.
For cotton bags, particularly ones made from organic cotton, yes. For polypropylene and polyethylene bags (which are more commonly found as alternatives in my experience), only around 40 times, depending on many factors. Cotton bags are generally more sturdy and last longer though, again in my experience. As with pretty much everything, it is nearly impossible to live completely environmentally friendly, but we should try to do the best each of us can.
The only real way regular middle class folks can have a meaningful impact on the environment is to move to a smaller house closer to where you work and use public transit or a bicycle.
Not having children is possibly the biggest one but climate impact usually isn't a point that factors in heavily one way or the other in this choice