Yes, paper straws suck. Rather than bring back plastic ones, let’s avoid single-use items

When US President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to return to plastic straws, claiming the paper version is ineffective and “disgustingly dissolves in your mouth”, he was widely criticised for setting back efforts to reduce plastic pollution. But many alternatives designed to help phase out single-use plastics don’t really solve the problem at all.

It’s not unusual to see plastic bans challenged or overturned. However, a government ban on the substitute is altogether new.

It’s true paper straws can disintegrate and become soggy before we finish a drink. Problems with finding viable substitutes to single-use plastics is one of the many challenges involved in phasing them out.

Sometimes, swapping one single-use item for another really is more trouble than it’s worth. A better approach would be to change our society’s single-use and disposal mindset.

The problem with plastic

Plastic pollution is an urgent problem for the environment and human health. Microplastics are everywhere, from Antarctica to our brains.

Plastic is made from fossil fuels, and so contributes to global warming. What’s more, plastic production is forecast to triple by 2050.

But recycling is difficult. Less than 10% of the world’s plastic has been recycled.

So we need to reduce our use of plastic in the first place, rather than trying to clean it up afterwards.

Poor substitutes and other traps

Trump rejected paper straws, saying they “don’t work” as well as plastic straws. The poor consumer experience of drinking through a soggy straw is one thing, but there are other problems too.

Swapping one problematic or hazardous material for another is sometimes called “regrettable substitution”, because the replacement has its own issues. For example, one harmful chemical used to make plastics is often replaced with others that are as bad or worse.

Paper straws, like paper cups, are often coated with plastics such as polyethylene or acrylic resin. This makes them difficult to recycle but also raises the risk of pollution. Some paper straws have been shown to contain more “forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS) than plastic.

Along with paper, other plant-based materials such as corn starch and bamboo are increasingly replacing single-use plastics – especially in food packaging. These substitutes carry a cost that is passed down to consumers, and many are more expensive to produce than plastic.

Some are labelled “compostable” or “biodegradable”. The term compostable suggests they will break down in home compost heaps or green waste bins, but that has been called into question.

Unfortunately, the term “biodegradable” does not necessarily mean a material will break down in home compost, or even landfill. It may require heat or pressure – in an industrial setting – for it to disintegrate enough to be harmless or safely used on your garden.

When it comes to straws, paper, bamboo, metal and glass have all been adopted as substitutes. Metal and glass straws could be dangerous for kids and less able-bodied people. They can also be hard to clean. Again, “biodegradable plastic” products have been accused of greenwashing and have been banned from organic composting bins in New South Wales and potentially Victoria because they don’t disintegrate well or are contaminated.

Meanwhile, thicker plastic bags labelled “reusable” have been introduced following bans on lightweight “single-use” plastic bags. While these durable bags may be reused for months at a time, they will eventually wear out and then they are even harder to break down in landfill.

Plastic bans can be problematic

Governments all over the world have attempted to ban single-use plastic. Often these bans are introduced without considering how the products are used in daily life and how those services will be replaced. The changes may disadvantage certain groups and new supply chains need to be created.

Often, governments wanting to be seen as protecting the environment target the low-hanging fruit such as plastic straws and plastic bags, rather than packaging as a whole.

So it’s no surprise these bans have faced opposition. Many have already been repealed or diluted.

In India, for example, the plastic ban was criticised for shifting the burden of waste management away from larger, more polluting industries on to smaller businesses. Larger establishments were also accused of passing the costs of substitute packaging, such as more expensive paper and cloth, to consumers.

Better to avoid single-use items

It’s time to stop searching for the perfect substitute. Let’s instead focus on getting rid of single-use items altogether.

Remember, straws were originally used for very specific cases and places: very young children and others unable to drink straight from a cup. They might still need straws.

Single-use bottles are unnecessary. We should learn from Germany’s glass bottle reuse system and set up circular loops of production and distribution.

Get serious about reducing plastic packaging

While some packaging – even some plastics – is needed for food safety and freshness, an overhaul of unnecessary packaging would go a long way.

In the United Kingdom, anti-waste charity WRAP examined fresh produce in supermarkets and called for the government to ban packaging on 21 fruits and vegetables sold in supermarkets by 2030. These included cucumbers, bananas and potatoes.

Removing unnecessary packaging and plastics involves reconfiguring social rules, knowledge, standards and expectations such as making items without packaging affordable and widely available. We must challenge our disposable society by creating spaces and practices that allow reuse.

Better policies and regulations

Policies that prevent plastics from reaching consumers in the first place would be better than bans on single-use items.

Governments should put the onus on the corporations that have profited from plastic and their role in plastic pollution.

Supermarkets and the food industry as a whole must also take responsibility for their part in the plastic waste problem.

Voluntary codes have not worked. Government regulation levels the playing field, but industry expertise and technical and social knowledge is needed to ensure systems work. While not without its challenges, Australia’s tyre recycling system has addressed many similar issues. The scheme’s approach to developing a national market for used tyres could be replicated for plastics, packaging and glass.

Meaningful change for our environment and health requires government regulations done well and fairly. It also requires coordinated waste infrastructure and industry practices that build on technical expertise and consumers’ lived experience.